lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (03/18/85)
The problem isn't that the appropriate groups don't already exist (groups for discussing the various networking systems with which we deal already do exist). The problem is that those groups don't (and most likely won't) exist as mailing lists on the ARPA side. For that reason, the ARPA Unix-Wizards discussion tends to include many topics that would more rightly be put into different groups if they were submitted from the Usenet side. There is no simple solution to the problem--of course people submitting from Usenet should use care to choose the appropriate group since they have that option. The confusion is the price we pay (on both sides) for cross-network links between two dissimilar networks. --Lauren--
ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (03/20/85)
What's wrong with net.dcom? It's supposed to be used for discussions
about data communication. Networking is but a subset of data
communications, so discussion could appear in net.dcom.network.
I think that the net's opinions of this is probably similar to that of
net.digital, which has held discussions in net.arch instead.
--
Ken Turkowski @ CADLINC, Menlo Park, CA
UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,nsc,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken
ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.ARPAgregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (03/24/85)
I could've sworn there were ARPA groups which discussed most of the levels of
networking. They may not be presently populated with messages but I'm sure if
some significant questions popped up they would be. For example:
tcp-ip
protocols (this can cover x25 and others)
header-people
msggroup
namedroppers (you have to ask Jon Postel (Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA to be on this)
all exist (or at least existed) on the ARPAnet.
Check the List-of-Lists next time it passes by here.
--
... hey, we've gotta get out of this place,
there's got to be something better than this ...
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpa